Privacy settings

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Traffic management


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Transport for London (21 005 203)

    Statement Upheld Traffic management 14-Dec-2021

    Summary: Mr X complained Transport for London refused to give him a resident's discount on the Congestion Charge after it stopped accepting new applications. Transport for London was at fault for failing to consider whether Mr X's case was exceptional enough to warrant the discount. This caused Mr X unnecessary frustration. Transport for London has agreed to consider whether to exercise its discretion and give Mr X the discount. It will also remind its staff that its policies should allow for consideration of the individual circumstances of each case.

  • Leeds City Council (21 002 040)

    Statement Not upheld Traffic management 13-Dec-2021

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to apply the Local Transport Plan policy and properly consider allowing motorcycles to use bus lanes when proposing a Traffic Regulation Order. Further Mr X said the Council delayed a trial allowing motorcycles to use bus lanes on a highway causing motorcyclists prolonged delays and inconvenience. The Council says it has acted in line with the recommendations of its Scrutiny Board and considered all relevant information when deciding to issue a Traffic Regulation Order. It says the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on its resources caused unavoidable delay to the trial use of bus lanes. We found the Council acted without fault.

  • Leicester City Council (20 008 751)

    Statement Not upheld Traffic management 22-Nov-2021

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to address his concerns about a business parking cars on double yellow lines and completing car repairs on a public highway. Mr X says this business is blocking the road causing congestion which affects his daily commute to work causing frustration and upset. The Ombudsman does not find fault with the Council.

  • Devon County Council (21 001 085)

    Statement Not upheld Traffic management 11-Nov-2021

    Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council decided not to reduce the speed limit or implement traffic calming measures on a road near his house. The Council was not at fault.

  • Devon County Council (21 000 675)

    Statement Not upheld Traffic management 01-Nov-2021

    Summary: Mrs M says the Council did not make the necessary investigations and enquiries before installing a zebra crossing outside a property she owns. She says this has caused her injustice because of increased pollution, a loss of privacy and potentially a loss of rental income and a reduction in the sale price. The Council was not at fault. The crossing was part of a scheme to reduce air pollution in the town. The Council collaborated with the district council and consulted the public before deciding on the plan. Mrs C's objections were considered by the committee which approved the scheme.

  • Telford & Wrekin Council (21 000 340)

    Statement Not upheld Traffic management 01-Nov-2021

    Summary: There is no fault in the Council's installation of a traffic calming scheme. Mrs X says the speed bump placement causes more noise, but the Council has explained that it is at an angle due to the curve of the road and it does not intend to amend the scheme. The Council's intention to place bark on a strip of land next to the pavement is a satisfactory response to complaints about maintaining the area.

  • Nottinghamshire County Council (20 013 673)

    Statement Not upheld Traffic management 18-Oct-2021

    Summary: Mrs X complained the Council did not appropriately consider her objections before approving a Traffic Regulation Order for parking restrictions outside her house. She also says the decision is unfair as the Council has allowed other accesses to properties in her road to remain free of parking restrictions. The Council was not at fault.

  • Cheshire West & Chester Council (21 000 893)

    Statement Not upheld Traffic management 17-Oct-2021

    Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council's decision not to install a traffic mirror on the highway opposite her house. We find the Council was not at fault.

  • Suffolk County Council (21 000 989)

    Statement Not upheld Traffic management 05-Oct-2021

    Summary: Ms B complained about how the Council responded to her concerns about heavy goods vehicles using the road near her home. She says the number of HGV's using the road has increased significantly because of the development of a local business park causing a significant amount of noise and pollution. The Ombudsman found no fault on the Council's part.

  • Birmingham City Council (21 001 473)

    Statement Not upheld Traffic management 26-Sep-2021

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council considered inaccurate traffic data which did not take account of COVID-19 when approving a traffic scheme. On the basis of the information seen, there is no fault although the data was based on traffic surveys completed before the pandemic and so it is possible this is inaccurate. However, there is nothing to suggest a different decision would have been made.